The Journal does not assert that what people say should be summarily disregarded at all times but it is indisputable that people lie, make mistakes, yield to undue influence and have a tendency to retrospectively superimpose inaccurate details during times of crisis. Physics does none of these things; physics tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, doing so impartially, at all times and in all places. Testimony is thus safely discarded as inaccurate--maliciously or otherwise--when it contradicts physical evidence.
Recall the fantastic, heroic accounts released by the Pentagon with respect to the death of Specialist, Patrick Tillman (posthumously promoted to the rank of Corporal) and the rescue of pvt. Jessica Lynch. We were told of Tillman's heroic death at the hands of a dangerous enemy but later learned that the famed Mr. Tillman was a victim of "friendly fire". Rather than being heroically stolen from a fierce enemy, pvt Lynch was actually retrieved uneventfully from the hospital bed in which the "enemy" treated her injuries. A second, African-American servicewoman was "rescued" along with pvt. Lynch but, evidently, deemed unworthy of the false exaltation bestowed upon pvt. Lynch. The second soldier's name, face and account have gone almost entirely unnoticed.
How has the Pentagon accounted for these discrepancies? Were these wildly inaccurate accounts of patriotic heroism "mistakes" such as we were told of the Iraq war itself? Does it even matter? Consider this:
If a plane the size of a Boeing 757 impacts a wall the size of the Pentagon, a hole of sufficient dimensions to account for the passage of whatever size object is said to have passed through it, must also be evident. The Journal offers for your consideration, the instant, airplane-shaped hole in the south tower of the World Trade Center. We all plainly saw this hole formed by an airplane. Even if we didn't have video or eyewitness testimony, we have a photograph of an airplane-sized, airplane-shaped hole. Were this single photograph the only evidence available, it should not be terribly difficult to discern what had taken place here. What if the airplane had somehow failed to actually penetrate the wall? What evidence would you then expect to find? It's obvious that 300,000 lbs of aluminum, titanium and other materials wouldn't "evaporate" (not at 500 mph, anyway) but would be converted into a smoking pile of rubble which would be reasonably expected to be found directly below the impacted object. Is that not so? This is more basic than physics; it's reality 101. It is reasonable, therefore, to state that if no airplane-shaped, airplane-sized hole is present, then the airplane must then be clearly visible on the outside of the building --in whatever condition. There is no third option. Is either the case at the Pentagon?
Here small, un-charred pieces of twisted metal are seen on the lawn of the Pentagon. Considering the size of the fireball which reached a size, at its peak, nearly twice that of the Pentagon (photo below). Considering the size of the explosion, do you find it feasible that any part of the plane could have remained un-charred? Other small, unidentifiable objects are seen at a distance. It seems to us that if any part of a 757 landed in the foreground of this photograph a splash pattern featuring more and larger parts of the plane should be visible in the distance than we see in this photograph. If the foreground objects have not been casually placed there and did actually result from an impact, this debris seems to call for a secondary incident and a much smaller plane than a Boeing 757 such as the remotely controlled drone, global hawk which the Pentagon has at it's disposal.
Considering the ample (if not abundant) physical evidence contradictory to the "official" version of 9/11 events, the Tin-Cap Journal finds far more feasible the theory that the planes that hit the twin towers were remotely piloted. This not a stretch since the military openly possesses this technology and even the average passenger jet is equipped with auto-pilot. We believe that this method presented acceptable risks since there was no part of the towers that needed to remain after the event and, due to the height of the towers, there was no likely impedance to the targets. Human pilots would have presented an unnecessary complication and an element of unpredictability to coordinating the events of the day. The Journal is, therefore comfortable in its assertion that no hijackers were involved in the events that took place on September 11, 2001.
Here Pentagon staff carry away a relatively large though apparently lightweight object covered by a blue tarp. Why the tarp? Weather appears to not be a concern. Off hand, the most plausible explanation for covering this unknown object is that the object is not what the tarp is protecting. Is this a part from a global hawk? We will likely never know exactly what the object is but we can safely eliminate a 757 engine which would weigh several tons. If this were any part of a 757 then where was it in the photographs of the impact site? Weren't we told that the whole plane fragmented to millions of pieces and "flowed" inside that tiny hole into building? How does a part this size still exist? Why is an intact part this size outside of the building? Have you seen this photograph on any national "news" program? Are these valid questions?
Below, two large plumes of smoke arise from the building, one just above the other. This dual smoke plume is inconsistent with the single plume one would reasonably expect from the single large explosion that we would likely result from the impact of a single plane. Have you seen this photograph on any national "news" broadcast?
- Now infamous FBI wiretapping and spying would have had to have failed 19 consecutive times--one for each of the 19 "hijackers."
- Four passenger jets successfully hijacked on the same day. How unlikely is that? When last (before September 11, 2001) was there even one successful hijacking in the U.S.? When was there even an unsuccessful attempt?
- Four lucky, unskilled, ill-equipped and nervous amateurs successfully figured out how to turn off the transponders. This, somehow, seems to have adversely affected all radar over the entire northeast as well--or did it?
- North American Air Defense (NORAD), the agency responsible for monitoring air traffic and enforcing airspace restrictions, just happened to be running drills exactly matching the four extraordinarily unlikely and allegedly unforeseen events at exactly the times they were actually occurring. NORAD thus expected their radar information to represent a simulation. This, coupled with a stand-down order issued by Vice President Dick Cheney who had commandeered NORAD for the "drills" explains why none of the "hijacked" jets were intercepted.
- The 3 "hijackers" who (according to legend) actually found their targets were able to do so in totally unfamiliar sky over totally unfamiliar land with no guidance assistance, and with no wrong turns or regression. It seems they all stumbled upon the most efficient routes too since the the planes were, apparently, still full of fuel.
- Since the alleged flight path of Flight 77 passed directly over the White House, the pilot would have passed up the opportunity to destroy the White House possibly killing the commander in chief of his most hated enemy nation. Instead he chose to spare his best possible target and increase the risk of interception by flying a few more minutes to target an office building. Why? Why target the Pentagon at all?
- As the Pentagon came into view, the "hijacker" would again decide to value the lives of enemy leaders, passing up the opportunity to crash directly into the office of the Director of the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld. Not to say that a hijacker would have known where to find Rumsfeld's office but the flight path he allegedly took placed him directly on course for it.
- The magnanimous, amateur would have even more luck when the aerobatic maneuvers that would have stalled any other 757 endow his with fighter-jet abilities thus enabling him to dive up to thirty-thousand feet, pull the massive jet out of a 6G dive and fly 270 degrees around the building--only a few feet above the ground, only to target the mostly empty, recently reinforced section of the building. He was even considerate of the landscapers managing to avoid even scraping the lawn. What compelling reason is there for the added risk of these alleged aerobatics? Why would anyone (especially someone so unskilled) attempt a risky approach from the front of the building when falling through the roof would have been just as effective and more efficient?
- At least 5 (and as many as 7) of the alleged hijackers are, evidently, fire and impact resistant and possibly invisible too because they apparently walked away unnoticed from the various crash scenes and are now known to be alive and well in Pakistan.
- This entire series of flukes would have had to occur exactly on the 60th anniversary of the Pentagon's groundbreaking ceremony (September 11, 1941) in the process, conveniently burying the news from one day earlier: Rumsfeld's announcement that the Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 trillion. Trillion. With a T. Yes, the Pentagon "lost" a billion dollars, a thousand times--twice!
- No terrorist has developed any interest or ability to kill Americans using any other method in the years since 2001. "News" reports continue attempts at fear mongering by by issuing incomplete and speculative reports on alleged terror threats to airports and planes because what could be more frightening than a jumbo jet falling of the sky? Whereas we hear daily reports of car bombings at markets, kidnappings and shootings in Iraq, this cunning, organized and resourceful enemy doesn't seem to understand the concept of "plan B" and they, apparently, especially favor activity during years in which presidential campaigning is underway.
The Journal understands and acknowledges that to assert that all of the events of 9/11 were entirely staged would require the complicity of the United States government, military and certain private interests as well as the likely involvement of Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad. All this manpower would only cover the initial event. More would be needed to accomplish the extended goals of 9/11. The entirety of the national media would have to be coordinated to disseminate false information about what happened and who was responsible; to garner support for the coming wars and keep the false reality alive with a steady stream of "terror" stories which may have no basis in reality.
To suggest that 9/11 was staged would imply years of planning, the direct complicity of federal agencies such as the NIST and FEMA (albeit after the fact), possible foreknowledge and involvement of state and local authorities in New York and Washington as well as private interests--a conspiracy of unprecedented proportions. Coordinating the necessary hundreds--or even thousands, nationwide, to act with a singular, malicious intent in either creating, facilitating or concealing the truth about the events of 9/11--with no one leaking any details, evidence or testimony, does seem like an improbably tall order. Improbable, however, is not impossible.
Improbable becomes quite possible when you consider that the entities necessary to coordinate on the aforementioned terms are already organized into hierarchies. This means that it would not be necessary for every individual involved to act with knowledge or event intent. Only the one (or a few) persons at the top of the organizations in question and those handling specific equipment need know while the rest would merely do their jobs as they were so instructed. This is also not a stretch since all of the national media is owned by just five corporations and has been come to be regarded, by some, as the sixth branch of the military.
What would it take to motivate the complicit to scheme, execute and conceal these heinous acts? $2.3 trillion would seem to adequately cover the cost of complicity, materials, labor, silence, guilt money to the families of the victims with more than enough left over to pay for a few secret prisons.
Believing is Seeing.
The first we heard of 9/11 was, most likely, the official story as it was rushed to us through official channels and on the heels of shocking footage. Was there adequate reason to believe it? Sure, if for no other reason that (at the time) there was no obvious reason such a story would be false. Time would change that--for some. Some would begin to doubt that story after physical and circumstantial evidence began to arise that conflicted with the "official" story. What about the rest? For the majority, a stamp of "official" is the standard of proof.
The majority, in their time of crisis, unwittingly bonded to the perpetrators who had subsequently represented themselves as comforters of the masses in their victimization. The guilty promised speedy vengeance against imaginary terrorists, swaddled the unwary deceived in flags and sang patriotic songs until they all fell soundly asleep in a new false reality of a post 9/11 world. Held captive to the "Patriot" Act, the entire nation collectively succumbed to Stockholm syndrome on an unprecedented scale. The majority thus have been handed an emotional, rather than a rational reason for believing the version of 9/11 events which they hold to be true.
The false comforters now associate ridicule with those who cast doubt upon the "official" version of events labeling them "conspiracy nuts" whilst they continue to engage in various misdeeds--to put it mildly.
Where Conspiracy Theories Come From.
Whomever you happen to be, you probably were not at the Pentagon on that fateful day. If you were at the largest office building in the world, you probably didn't witness "the event" from the beginning with your own two eyes. You may have "been there" but unless you were a direct witness to the event, you would likely have needed to rely upon someone else's version of events, to some degree. If you were an eye (or ear) witness you were probably shocked because you didn't expect it. How would your reaction affect your reckoning the sound you heard or your determination of what exactly was that blur you saw? How could you possibly know? The vast majority of the world's population must now rely, to some degree, upon the credibility of someone to find out what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. So whom will you believe and, more importantly, why?
If you were a direct witness on 9/11, you were probably a Pentagon employee. As such, would you have been censored? Have you signed a non-disclosure agreement or are otherwise under orders to remain silent about "classified" matters? If you saw or know something other than what you heard reported on the news, and were ordered not to speak of it, would you speak anyway or would you yield to undue influence? If you did decide to publicly contradict the official version, to whom could you turn that could take the proper actions but wouldn't be under similar orders? If you (or anyone) decided to "blow the whistle," how confident are you that, between the government, military and media, the massive national bureaucracy would be penetrated by your words and the general public would ultimately become aware of your testimony? Would this be a realistic expectation?
This is an important question because between the glaring omissions of the 9/11 commission report and all the evidence that the US gov't did indeed not only anticipate but had foreknowledge of "the events", there may very well be 1, 100 or 1,000 people who saw, heard or are otherwise aware of key information of which the general public is largely unaware. What options would a so silenced minority have to make their testimony known? Not very good ones. A web page here, a conference there but without a national media outlet or duly authorized agency that is willing to conduct a serious investigation and report openly and honestly, anyone so determined to get his story out would likely end up frustrated, marginalized and ignored.
Choosing the truth.
So now that you have examined a few of the details that have somehow escaped open national discussion every day since September 11, 2001, how do you feel? Do you find probable cause to re-evaluate your understanding of the events of 9/11 and their staggering implications? Are you at least intrigued by the prospect that at least some of the claims made herein might actually be true? If not, is the evidence presented in the Journal less than compelling or is the Journal itself insufficiently influential to have the credibility prerequisite to approach your sensibilities? What would the Journal gain from prevarication? Have you really been reading the misguided scribblings of a chemically imbalanced madman?
The Journal readily acknowledges that it has no agent who was present at the Pentagon on that day (or any other), neither has the Journal taken or doctored any of the photographic evidences presented herein. That would seem to give the Pentagon the credibility advantage but then what of the Tillman and Lynch accounts? What of the unexplained history of casual deception originating at the Pentagon? Will you account for this history of deception in deciding whether to endow the Pentagon with your confidence?